NEGLIGENT DRIVING. 289 



The o-^Tier of a cart or carriage is bound to have good Damage from 

 tackle, and he is liable for an accident in consequence of its }'^'^^^ break- 

 breaking ; as where the chain-stay of a cart broke, and ^°^' 

 the horse being frightened ran away and did damage (y) ; 

 and where, in consequence of the reins breaking, a foot 

 passenger was run over and injured (s). 



So, also, in the following case, in which it appeared that Or from a de- 

 the defendant was driving his cart down a hill, and the feet in the 

 horse, which was usually quiet, suddenly commenced kick- '^^^^^S^- 

 ing, and proceeded at a furious pace. Eventually the 

 shafts broke, and the horse and cart came into collision 

 with the plaintiff's gig, and injured it. It was held that 

 as the breaking of the shafts showed a defect in the cart, 

 which raised a presumption of negligence in the owner, he 

 was liable for the damage sustained by the plaintiff (a). 



The subject of negligence on both sides was fully con- mgligence on 

 sidered by the Court of Exchequer in Bridge v. The Grand *<"^^ "'^«*- 

 Junction. Raihvay Company {h), and Mr. Baron Parke there 

 said, " the rule of law is laid down with perfect correctness 

 in the ease of Butterfield v. Forrester (c), that although 

 there may have been negligence on the part of the plaintiff, 

 yet unless he might by the exercise of ordinary care have 

 avoided the consequence of the defendant's negligence, he 

 is entitled to recover. But if by ordinary care he might 

 have avoided them, he is the author of his own wrong." 

 And in a later case {d) the law as deducible from pre- 

 ceding decisions was thus laid down by Wightman, J., 

 delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber : — 

 " It appears to us that the proper question for the jury 

 is, whether the damage was occasioned entirely by the 

 negligence or improper conduct of the defendant, or 

 whether the plaintiff himself so far contributed to the 

 misfortune by his own negligence, or want of ordinary and 

 common care and caution, that but for such negligence or 

 want of ordinary and common care and caution on his part, 

 the misfortune would not have happened. In the first 

 place, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover; in the 



[y] Wchh V. Lawrence, 2 Chit. East, 60 ; 10 E. E. 433. 



262. {d) Taffy. Warman, 27 L. J., C. 



(z) Cotteril v. Turley, 8 C. & P. P. 322. See also Radley v. London 



693. # North Western Rail. Co., 1 App. 



(a) Templenumv. Saydon, 19L.T. Cas. 754; 46 L. J., Ex. 573; Hub- 



218. lin, ^c, Rail. Co. v. Slattery, 3 



(4) Bridge y. The Grand Junction App. Cas. 1155 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 



Rail. Co., 3 M. & "W. 244. 365. 



[e) Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 



O. tJ 



